Professional Defenses

10 May 2009 at 12:22 pm Nicolai Foss 3 comments

| Nicolai Foss |

In Critical Mass (an excellent book, although its treatment of economics is confused, but that is a different story), Philip Ball recounts an amusing anecdote about James Lighthill, an expert on the physics of fluid flow who did early work applying this part of physics to understanding traffic patterns:

In the Lighthill-Whitham model, the individuality of drivers is entirely submerged beneath average driving behavior. . . . This is ironic, for Lighthill himself was anything but average in his driving habits. He was a persistent speeding offender, but would explain in court that as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge (the chair once occupied by Newton), he was fully aware both of the laws of mechanics and of his social duty not to waste energy. As a result, he told the hapless judges, he felt obliged to desist from braking when going downhill. It seems that this defence was occassionally succesful (pp. 197-98).

Perhaps economists and management scholars should try something similar:

The Decian Excuse: “Yes, your Honor, I did pay below the minimum wage, but that was because I know that what truly matters to the plaintiff is his intrinsic motivation.”
The Kirznerian Excuse: “I did sell that stock in my company after learning from the CEO about the breakthrough in our drug development, but I did so in order to close pockets of ignorance in the market.”
Etc. Please add.

Entry filed under: - Foss -, Ephemera.

Pomo Periscope XVIII: “The French Don’t Care What You Actually Say as Long as You Pronounce It Correctly” Missouri J-School Tastes the Apple

3 Comments Add your own

1. Steve Phelan | 10 May 2009 at 9:11 pm

Of course there is the Schumpeterian defense: Your honor I was only fanning the flames of creative destruction…
2. Warren Miller | 11 May 2009 at 6:48 am

The Penrosian Defense:

Your Honor, as the CEO, that fuzz-buster was our key resource years ago. II sold it out of R&D because I knew the meteoric growth from its success would overwhelm our limited abilities to manage the company.

The Barney Defense:

Your Honor, my analysis using the VRIO framework showed conclusivelyI that the fuzz-buster was a competitive disadvantage.

The Teece, et al., Defense:

Your Honor, that fuzz-buster had nothing at all to do with the dynamism of our capabilities.

The Caves Defense:

Your Honor, that fuzz buster is one of the parameters that defines our strategic group. But it’s illegal in Virginia, which is where our new corporate headquarters will be. Of course, I got rid of it.

The McGahan Defense:

Your Honor, industries evolve and change. Even a judge should know that. This sector grew away from the fuzz-buster, and that’s why I got rid of it. So what if the stock tanked? Analysts should take a longer view.

The Porter Defense:

I’d call you “Your Honor,” but you don’t deserve it. I mean, do you know who I am? Who do you think YOU are? And while we’re on that subject, how dare you question my judgment. The fuzz-buster is no longer the key to our position in the market. Technology has blown right by it. I don’t care what the shareholders say in their class action suit. Getting rid of it was the CEO’s call. After I recommended it, Monitor and McKinsey both endorsed it, investing the proceeds gave our client a leg up in this industry, and it was the right thing to do. I’m going to my chateau near Normandy. Call me if you think you can find my number. The French think I’m the greatest. And I am. You look as if you didn’t hear that. Do you want me to repeat it? Maybe I should draw you a picture using crayons. Hear me here: Clausewitz was a piker. I AM THE GREATEST. And I am a man of a few words. Precious few. Got it?
3. Michael | 19 May 2009 at 11:50 pm

Might I add the Good To Great Defense?

It doesn’t matter what we work on, so long as the right people are on the bus. So we sold [the above Fizz-Buster].